Rappi home

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds the 'logged-in consumer' context, which implies authentication requirements, and repeats 'read-only' which is already covered by readOnlyHint. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any data structure. Since annotations already provide strong safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds minimal but non-contradictory value beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core idea ('web home') and safety property ('read-only'). It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed, though it is short to the point of being minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the home page contains, how parameters affect the results, or what the agent should expect in return. Without additional context, the agent cannot reliably use this tool or interpret its output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely omits any explanation of the two parameters, privacy_mode and response_format. The enum values give some inherent guidance, but the lack of descriptions or examples leaves the agent to guess their exact impact. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as the web home for a logged-in consumer and explicitly states it is read-only. This conveys a general resource but lacks a specific verb or detailed functionality. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like rappi_home_feed or rappi_browse_stores, so the purpose is clear only at a high level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The agent is left without any direction to select this tool over rappi_home_feed or other related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.